Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In the name of making AdeptiCon the finest Games Workshop convention anywhere, AdeptiCon will be releasing an AdeptiCon Warhammer 40K Rules FAQ that will apply to all WH40K tournaments (the AdeptiCon 40K Gladiator, the AdeptiCon 40K National Team Tourney, and the AdeptiCon 40K Championships.)  The purpose of this FAQ is to supplement the official Games Workshop FAQs (available online at http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/errata.htm) and facilitate gameplay – allowing our diverse attendee base to understand what to expect at AdeptiCon in terms of rules interpretations.

 

We have put together a beta-version of the 40K FAQ, and have decided to solicit comments from the larger 40K community.  This beta-FAQ can be downloaded from the following link:

 

http://www.adeptuswindycity.com/files/AdeptiCon_40k_Tournament_FAQ_BETA.pdf

 

The answers in this beta-FAQ may not always follow the exact Rules As Written (RAW), particularly in areas where the RAW is unclear or contradictory, but we have attempted to keep the answers internally consistent, with the goal of providing a smooth and coherent gaming experience. 

 

While not official in any way outside of AdeptiCon, we feel that a good faith effort has been made on our part to address a serious flaw that exists within the hobby, and particularly within the competitive tournament scene.  As such, gamers and groups are free to reference this FAQ for their own personal use. 

 

Comments on the beta-FAQ and/or suggestions of additional questions may be sent to faq@adeptuswindycity.com.  Comments and suggestions on the beta-FAQ should be sent before Thursday, September 7^th, and the first release of the 40K FAQ should happen shortly thereafter.

Finally, someone did it. I was too tired to get through the whole thing, but I saw that the important stuff was taken care of, like resolving ordinance.

Now that is what a FAQ should look like, even though there are some points that I disagree with. Has anyone considered forwarding a copy to Andy Hoare as an example of what the 40K community wants to see in the way of a FAQ?

Has anyone considered forwarding a copy to Andy Hoare as an example of what the 40K community wants to see in the way of a FAQ?

First, why stop there. Second, you can lead a horse to water...

Kudos to Adeptus. That's some unpleasant work they took on and they did a pretty good job on it. More importantly, they seem open to feedback.

since the fan community is doing better with GTs than GW is doing, it makes sense they should do a better job with FAQs than GW. i'm glad someone finally did it.

It's a shame you guys have to do this, but big thumbs up for the job you did.

I'm not fond of changing the range of rapid fire weapons, but there aren't any rapid fire weapons in my army, so what do I care haha.

28 pages of testiment to GW incompetence.

I just got to the section about scattering into your own models killing the deepstrikers.

Guess I'll be building a new army or skipping adepticon this year.

Edit: I do not like how you guys handled the castellan minefield rules at all. They're suddenly pinning and ordnance, but stop working in the assault phase? Do assaulters somehow just jump over them?

I just got to the section about scattering into your own models killing the deepstrikers.
Guess I'll be building a new army or skipping adepticon this year.

That ruling shouldn't apply to Drop Pods...

Seriously...it's a beta right now, so if there's anything that seems totally wrong to you, write it up and send it to the FAQ account. Not saying that they're binding themselves by audience response, but the FAQ writers will definitely listen to coherent arguements.

It's just a beta FAQ. Send in your feedback...

and of course my workplace filters adeptuswindycity.com... guess I'll have to read it after I get home before I can figure out what all they said

I find it pretty telling of the state of GW rules writing that roughly 72 pages of basic rules requires a 17 pages of a 28 page FAQ dedicated soley to it... One might as well write and use their own rules!


Complaints aside, that's one heckuva job you fellas at AdeptiCon have done there and kudos to you for tackling such a massive and thankless task. My only suggestions for improvement would be to number the both the sections and the  questions within so as to allow easier referencing both in the beta process and when put to use in play and should be pretty easy to add in too. Regarding the rulings themselves, I'll leave that to people that actually know them!

Awesome job, this goes a long way toward fixing 40K. Hopefully somwone at GW comes across this thing.

Great FAQ. This is what GW should have bloody done in the first place.

I take strong issue to your ruling on the mixed Ordos. Both Codices state that they can be mixed. The DH FAQ, where you get your answer for this FAQ, was printed between the release of C: DH and C: WH, and it says the complete opposite of what the wording in the Codex does. And it's a wording that has never made sense - a complete contradiction of two Codices. I see no reason to use GW's faulty answer to the mixed Ordos question.

Why don't Spore Mines that Deep Strike cause Pinning?

Why do mine fields only work in the movement phase?

I don't like how Creed is restricted to forces using the Cadian rules. When Creed was first published, it was inside Codex: EoT, which had a Cadian as opposed to an Imperial Guard list. When Codex Guard came out soon after, they just did a copy & paste job. Now I cannot use a Doctrine or even a Basic Regiment army with Creed - I have to take a 'Cadian' force. This just seems unnecessarily restrictive.

You've only answered half the question about Doom Sirens.

Your answer to the question about SoB/GK/BT anti-psychic stuff being 'does not effect in any situation, anytime' is very bad, as effect means everything. Everything you do in a game will have an effect on these units, therefore using the power at all constitutes an effect, therefore the power/s in question cannot be used. Ever. Fix that answer, and make it clear that these special psychic saves only affect psychic powers that include the SoB/GKs/BTs in their area of effect, which makes far more sense. Also means that powers that have a target of 'self' cannot be blocked by this.

Page 17, the question about USR vs Codex Specific Restrictions. You've defeated the purpose of the USR entirley by saying that people should refer to the Codex in question. Yes, for some it makes sense (Infiltrating Berzerkers are a no no), but allowing all 4 different versions of True Grit to be used? No way. Fix that.

I don't like the answer about Deep Striking into friendly models.

Your ruling on deploying ICs with units is absurd. Why can I deploy a unit, and then later in my deployment join an IC to them, but not the other way around?

'Replacing' the Armour Save for Turbo-Boosting bikes is a bad road to be going down. No amount of fluff justifications about 'psychic bullets' will ever make the idea of Psycannons suddenly being able to defeat Marine armour just because they're moving faster make any sense.

Your psychic power vs shooting rules doesn't make a lot of sense. Do I have to roll To Hit with Fortune?

That's all I've got.

BYE

That's funny my gaming group and I have always played it that if you deepstrike into your own units the deepstrikers die. The rules don't cover exactly what to do in that situation so we just followed what would happen if they were enemy units. Generally we treat friendly units as impassible terrain for these kinds of purposes.

Conversely we allow Pods to move away from friendly units as if they were enemy units/impassible terrain.

Posted By Centurian99 on 09/05/2006 5:27 AM

I just got to the section about scattering into your own models killing the deepstrikers.
Guess I'll be building a new army or skipping adepticon this year.

That ruling shouldn't apply to Drop Pods...

Seriously...it's a beta right now, so if there's anything that seems totally wrong to you, write it up and send it to the FAQ account. Not saying that they're binding themselves by audience response, but the FAQ writers will definitely listen to coherent arguements.

I just think it's a gigantic rules change to declare that a 500 point command squad that deepstrikes into one of your own guys is dead. That's not a clarification, that's a major rules change with huge implications to the metagame.

No one but you guys in Chicago is actually going to play that way, not even voodoo boy if he's playing in a tournament, which means that those of us not from Chicago are much less likely to actually come by for a visit (visit Adepticon).

As I've said before, I'm not overly keen on taking a major long distance trip to play in a tournament with extensive house rules. But however you guys want to play it is how you want to play it. For me personally a pilgrimage to Adepticon would end up being nothing but grudge matches anyway, which I'm flatly not interested in entertaining under such extreme house rules. (particularly ones that bone my army so hard).

Centurian is from Michigan, but I guess that's not Delaware or Philly so it must be Chicago then. No one is changing any rules for anyone else to show up. This has been the best run and biggest attended 40k tournament and weekend in the WORLD. No one will bat an eye if you or I were not there. Pods stop at friendly troops and deep strikers die if they can not complete their circle. You land on your own pod with deep strikers and they die, period. Cough up the 30pts to put that 500pt command squad in a pod or stay home. Simple, no?

Darth, again, they can play it however they want. I'd never suggest they change it for attendance purposes. Obviously this is the biggest tournament in the states if not the world, so they know how to pack them in.

I'm merely pointing out to Bill that this is a huge rules change, and that running a big tournament and making huge rules changes does not enhance the reputation of the tournament, at least with people who are likeminded with me. To play in a tournament with big rules changes, I need to practice with the big rules changes, and I'm not interested in making that commitment.

So for me personally, I'm seriously interested in making the trek next year, but after looking at this document, it's likely you'll find me in the Fantasy pavillion, because again, house rules are a big negative for me.

Posted By mauleed on 09/05/2006 1:48 PM

I just think it's a gigantic rules change to declare that a 500 point command squad that deepstrikes into one of your own guys is dead. That's not a clarification, that's a major rules change with huge implications to the metagame.

 

Ed, it's a clarification that fills a huge void in the rules.  There's no rules anywhere that allow models to be placed on top of each other.  There's no rules anywhere that allow models to occupy the same space.    There's no rules that allow Deep Strikers to stop their scatter movement if they come in contact with friendly models...

See the problem?

I'm a little confused about the deepstriking into friendly models, why is counting them as destroyed a 'huge rules change'.  I thought that there was no rule for it, but most people played that they were destroyed anyway, I know we did (I'm from Michigan too, coincidently).  Do most people play that they automatically move out of the way like droppods do or something?  I think that is way too much of an advantage, especially if you have multiple deepstriking units that come in on the same turn, there should be an element of risk.

Onto other concerns I had with the FAQ:

Psychic power ruling is a mess.  I know it may seem like a lot of effort, but what really should be done is to have someone go over every single psychic power in the game, and make a chart which has each part of the shooting phase and whether that psychic power has to follow it or not.  As of right now, it looks like these are possible situations regarding psychic powers at Adepticon:

Fortune needs to roll to hit, as does every buffing psychic power.

Fury of the Ancients gets an attack if the unit has an auspex.  What does the librarian test to see with the auspex, the table edge?  An infiltrating unit that happens to be in line with the table edge?  Also, it looks like Fury of the Ancients has to roll to hit and take target priority tests.  Since a spot on the table edge is not a classified target in the rulebook, this only complicates things.

Fear of the Darkness needs to roll to hit.  Is that for each unit affected or once for every unit within 12"?

Otherwise, I am really glad that this FAQ exists.  Like others, I haven't had the time to read the entire thing yet, but I'm worried that there might be a hidden easter egg in there that could be a strange interpretation of a rule that could be abused as a tactic.  (Super happy that you can't tankshock into close combat!  Not so thrilled that if you tankshock with three vehicles on a board edge you instant kill any unit)

- Oaka

Of course I see the problem, but you've swatted a fly with a shotgun. And it's definitely a rules change, as the rules absolutely do not say anything ever dies by scattering into it's buddies.

I wouldn't mind if that were universally accepted, as I'd just adjust, but like your drop pod/mystic rules, it's Adepticon only, and hence not something I'm going to practice/play under.

Out of curiosity, how do you play it when deep striking units land on your own troops, and why? Like I said, the FAQ is still in beta, so a good argument will definitely get read by the FAQ writers.

What I find interesting about this "House Rules" claim is that no matter where you go - "House Rules" will be implemented in a tournament, whether it be the east coast, midwest, west coast or internationally.  This is simply due to the fact that judges are normally pulled from the local area and everyone sees things differently on some of the realyl grey areas in the 40K rules.  Heck, I've travelled throughout the midwest and to the east coast for some tournaments and have the same questions handled differently in the middle of a game that really hosed and benefitted my force.  I believe the benefit of knowing the rules ahead of time far out ways any changes as long as you take the time to note the items that are important to your force. 

Mauleed - I'm sure that any tournaments in your area have "House Rules" too that others may not agree with.  It's a pity that you don't seem to want to adapt.  My buddy and I are going to England for the 40K GT Heat One and we don't agree with all of their rulings, but we are adapting.  Heck - we are adapting to the UK GT and Adepticon FAQs, which do not always match.  One mark of good generalship is adaptation.

On the side, we are in favor of the deepstriking ruling for friendly units (and our group is Toledo) - so it's not just Chicago.  There are rulings on DakkaDakka, AWC and GW websites that I personally don't agree with.  However, as for Adepticon, qw make adjustments simply because Adepticon puts on a tournament weekend that far exceeds any expectations.

    

And this statement:

There's no rules anywhere that allow models to be placed on top of each other.  There's no rules anywhere that allow models to occupy the same space. 

is not technically correct.

The deepstrike rules themselves, if followed to the letter, allow you to place models on top of each other. For convenience most people simply place them next to the other models.

What isn't allowed in the rules, is moving into the space occupied by a friendly model. But this is something that should be disected in YMDC.

But what definitely isn't in the rules is not being able to place or being destroyed if scattering on top of your own models.

Im looking through the FAQ as I speak and comparing it to the WAU FAQ (Ill list the location of the file as soon as the site comes up) and suprised at how close the answers are in agreeing with each other (incidently the WAU FAQ has been availiable for a week, Dakka jusst wasnt notified as it was down and now WAU is... oh well, one of these days both will be up at the same time )

Formatting for the Adepticon FAQ should be cleaned up and more readable, but hey, its got alot of good stuff there and thats whats most important

Wow, it lets you tank shock things off the board edge. Woohah.

For the tau section I would have preferred for the SMS and leadership test something like
-model that fire a SMS do not have to take a leadership test if the unit targetted is in range of the SMS.

This would have prevent abuse of the railgun that fire on the other side of the table while still keeping the fact that the electonic of the SMS help the model target better.

Just finished reading the whole thing. Some of the rulings I would have done differantly if I were running a tournament/league, but aside from a handful (that I am currently writing an e-mail about) I don't have a huge issue with them. Overall a great job, I can tell a lot of work went into writing this thing and I intend to use it for tournaments and leagues at my shop (except the few thigs I'm mentioning below)

Q: Do troops pile in on the same turn they are consolidated into?
A: No.

by far my biggest complaint. The RAW do not allow you to move at all in you're movement OR assault phase if a unit is engaged, you may ONLY make pile-in moves and ONLY at the end of the assault phase. According to this ruling, if 2 units only have a single model in BtB after a consolidation, both those units are stuck in that position for the next assault phase the following player turn. That is why the pile-in move is at the very end of the turn, after consolidation moves. Otherwise you get wonly things like a marine consolidating into a 20 strong ork mob on his turn, and the orks not being able to move more models in at all on their own turn.

Q: Is the edge of the board considered impassible for non-broken units so that units cannot normally move off
or does anytime a unit moves off the board edge is it considered lost? For example, say a unit is Tank Shocked
and passes its Leadership test. The shortest route of movement for the models underneath the vehicle would
result in the unit being moved off the board. Is the unit moved off the board (and out of the game), or is the
board edge considered impassible (meaning the models are moved the shortest route that would leave them on
the table)?
A: Unless overriding scenario special rules require units to leave the table edge, units that leave the table are
considered lost and count as such for VP purposes.

this is worse perhaps than the pile-in ruling. Accoridng to the question and answer as written, a unit that PASSES it's tank shock test would be destroyed while a unit that failed would merely fall back. This is just wrong. Now agreed, this situation is a rare occurance, but the idea it could happen is findamentaly wrong to me. Board edges should be trated as impassable except for fleeing units and specific scenario objectives.

Q: Does the invulnerable save granted by Turbo-boosting replace the model?s armor save for that turn, or is it
in addition to the model?s normal armor save?
A: Replace.

As has been said, this poses problems with psycannons suddenly ignoring 3+ armor saves. This should be changed to "in addition" as you can only take a single save anyways, regardless of type.

Q: Can you block a force weapon's instant Death ability with a psychic hood?
A: Yes.

This ruling is great, but should be expanded to say that using a force weapon counts a using a psychic power. There's many things that affect psychic powers besides psychic hoods, and they should play into effect here.

Q: If a carnifex is given two venom cannons, or two barbed stranglers, does the creature gain two separate
weapons, each twin linked, or a single weapon that is twin linked? For example, if given two venom cannons,
does it get 4 shots twin linked, or 2 shots twin linked?
A: Single weapon, twin- linked.

Except that you are not paying to twin-link a weapon, you are paying for 2 seperate weapons, much as lascannon sponsons on a predator are not merely twin-linked. This is not the same as Tau, for example, that specifically say the two weapons count as twin-linked and pay a reduced price compared to buying the same weapon twice.

I definitely don't agree that castellans don't work in the assault phase.

One to add-Can Alpha Legion use a greater daemon?

How do sisters/Grey Knights interact with Siren?

On the whole, I like the AdeptiFAQ. There are a few things that I disagree with, but since I didn't write it I'm not surprised. On the whole it's an excellent effort and I applaud it! I will encourage anyone I play with to agree to use this FAQ (or any post-beta version).

Re Castellans: very glad that they are of the opinion that multiple minefields don't stack!

However, if Castellan mines count as ordnance barrage when they go off, why don't drifting and deepstriking spore mines? Seems to be a consistency problem here.

I don't mind that Castellans don't go off in the assault phase - prevents mining your own marines in order to try to protect them from assaults. This ruling makes Castellans more of a tactical denial of movement weapon (as one would guess they were intended to be), rather than the no-brainer instant fortification of your own guys thing that they tend to be.
Sure, it may not make 'real-world' sense, but then neither does the fact that marines don't get hurt by mines going off in the face of an enemy less than a scale inch away...

Re: deployment edges for reserves - I love this interpretation, of moving reserves on from the side edges of your deployment zone. Makes reserves interesting tactically, instead of just being the suck. No one I've played with has played this way, but I think it's way better.

Lots more but it's too late and I'm fading...

Posted By Kalamadea on 09/05/2006 5:56 PM
Q: Does the invulnerable save granted by Turbo-boosting replace the model’s armor save for that turn, or is it
in addition to the model’s normal armor save?
A: Replace.
As has been said, this poses problems with psycannons suddenly ignoring 3+ armor saves. This should be changed to "in addition" as you can only take a single save anyways, regardless of type.

The FAQ is correct, not only according to the RAW but according to past rulings by GW.